Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Gregory Stewart knocked on a woman’s door early one morning. The woman thought she recognized defendant and let him inside her apartment. Shortly thereafter, the woman realized she had mistaken defendant for someone else, but she did not ask him to leave. Instead, the two sat in the living room and smoked marijuana. Defendant made the woman uncomfortable and later followed her to her bedroom, prompting the woman to ask defendant to leave. The woman refused defendant’s request to stay, he asked for sandwich bags. Defendant commented that he “needed to make some money,” removed a bag from his pocket, and went into the bathroom, where he spilled a substance on the floor. When defendant finished in the bathroom, he used the woman’s phone to call for a ride. Defendant said she could have whatever remained of the substance on her floor and left. The woman then called 9-1-1, reporting that defendant spilled a “white, powdery substance” on her bathroom floor, asked if she or anyone that she knew wanted to “buy some” of the substance, and stated several times that he “needed to make some money.” Police located defendant near the apartment, discovering small bags containing methamphetamine on defendant and arrested him. Police also determined that the substance on the bathroom floor was methamphetamine and, after transporting defendant, found a glove containing methamphetamine in their patrol car. Defendant was charged with various crimes, including unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that to prove that a delivery “is for consideration” under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or completed a sale of the specified drugs. The Court held that evidence a defendant possessed the drugs with the intent to sell them is insufficient. The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded this case for resentencing. View "Oregon v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant Gregory Stewart knocked on a woman’s door early one morning. The woman thought she recognized defendant and let him inside her apartment. Shortly thereafter, the woman realized she had mistaken defendant for someone else, but she did not ask him to leave. Instead, the two sat in the living room and smoked marijuana. Defendant made the woman uncomfortable and later followed her to her bedroom, prompting the woman to ask defendant to leave. The woman refused defendant’s request to stay, he asked for sandwich bags. Defendant commented that he “needed to make some money,” removed a bag from his pocket, and went into the bathroom, where he spilled a substance on the floor. When defendant finished in the bathroom, he used the woman’s phone to call for a ride. Defendant said she could have whatever remained of the substance on her floor and left. The woman then called 9-1-1, reporting that defendant spilled a “white, powdery substance” on her bathroom floor, asked if she or anyone that she knew wanted to “buy some” of the substance, and stated several times that he “needed to make some money.” Police located defendant near the apartment, discovering small bags containing methamphetamine on defendant and arrested him. Police also determined that the substance on the bathroom floor was methamphetamine and, after transporting defendant, found a glove containing methamphetamine in their patrol car. Defendant was charged with various crimes, including unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that to prove that a delivery “is for consideration” under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or completed a sale of the specified drugs. The Court held that evidence a defendant possessed the drugs with the intent to sell them is insufficient. The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded this case for resentencing. View "Oregon v. Stewart" on Justia Law

The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability filed a formal complaint alleging 13 misconduct counts against respondent, the Honorable Vance Day, involving Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.1; Rule 2.2; Rule 3.3(B); Rule 3.7(B); courteous to litigants); and Article VII (Amended), sections 8(1)(b), (c), and (e), of the Oregon Constitution. After conducting a hearing, the commission filed a recommendation with the Oregon Supreme Court, to the effect that clear and convincing evidence supported a conclusion that respondent had violated multiple rules with respect to eight of the counts, including violations not alleged in the complaint. The commission further recommended that respondent be removed from office. Respondent argued the Supreme Court should have dismissed all or several counts for procedural reasons; that the commission did not sufficiently prove the alleged misconduct; and, in any event, that the only appropriate sanction was a censure. After review, the Oregon Court dismissed two of the eight counts of the complaint that were at issue; the Court declined to consider any violation that the Commission did not originally allege in its complaint. The Supreme Court concluded the Commission proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent engaged in some of the misconduct alleged in the remaining six counts. The Court suspended respondent, without pay, for three years. View "In re Day" on Justia Law

Defendant Israel Tena, Jr. was convicted of felony fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence. On appeal, he challenged the admission of evidence that he had previously assaulted two other intimate partners within the last 14 years. The state argued that the evidence was admissible to prove intent, and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded the evidence of the two prior incidents of domestic violence were impermissible character evidence. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Oregon v. Tena" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, petitioner Justin Behrle was convicted of three crimes and sentenced accordingly. After entry of judgment and an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and, in that claim, specified five instances in which his trial counsel allegedly failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment. Petitioner sought an order reversing his convictions and sentences. After a hearing, the post-conviction court found that, although three of petitioner’s specifications were without merit, two were well-taken. As a result, the court stated, it would “overturn the convictions in order [that] they be remanded back to the trial court.” The court then entered a judgment allowing the petition, effectively setting aside petitioner’s convictions and remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial. Defendant (the superintendent) appealed the post-conviction judgment, and petitioner filed a notice of cross-appeal, raising issues on which he had not prevailed in the post-conviction proceedings. The Court of Appeals determined that petitioner’s notice was untimely and dismissed his cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed review in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s cross- appeal as untimely. After it did so, petitioner filed his brief with the Court of Appeals and included cross-assignments of error seeking the same relief that he sought in his cross-appeal. The Supreme Court concluded petitioner’s cross-assignments of error were permitted by ORAP 5.57(2) and that resolving the merits of the issue at issue would no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties. The Court therefore dismissed the petition for review as moot. View "Behrle v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Two sets of petitioners challenged the Oregon Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28). IP 28, if adopted, would add an exception to the constitutional protections recognized in Vannatta v. Keisling, 931 P2d 770 (1997). Petitioners challenged the caption, the “yes” and “no” result statements, and the summary. Finding revisions warranted for all elements to the ballot title, the Oregon Supreme Court referred the matter back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Markley/Lutz v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Two sets of petitioners challenged the Oregon Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28). IP 28, if adopted, would add an exception to the constitutional protections recognized in Vannatta v. Keisling, 931 P2d 770 (1997). Petitioners challenged the caption, the “yes” and “no” result statements, and the summary. Finding revisions warranted for all elements to the ballot title, the Oregon Supreme Court referred the matter back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Markley/Lutz v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet), sought a declaration that planned, future collective bargaining sessions between TriMet’s bargaining team and the bargaining team for defendant Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757 (ATU) would not be “meetings” subject to the open meetings requirements of Oregon’s Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 to ORS 192.695. ATU opposed the declaration, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court agreed with TriMet and granted its motion, but the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, reasoning that, even if the bargaining sessions were not “meetings” as that term was defined in the Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610(5), when the TriMet team participates in the sessions, it may be subject to the prohibition in ORS 192.630(2) that, generally: “A quorum of a governing body may not meet in private for the purpose of deciding on or deliberating toward a decision on any matter[.]” The Oregon Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals’ construction of that statute was correct, and TriMet failed to establish, on this summary judgment record, that no “quorum” of the TriMet team would “meet” during the negotiations; thus, TriMet failed to establish as a matter of law that the bargaining sessions at issue will not be subject to ORS 192.630(2). Finally, the Supreme Court rejected ATU’s proposal that another provision of the Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.660(3), required that all bargaining sessions of a public body be conducted in an “open meeting” unless both parties consent to private meetings. View "TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kerry and Scott Tomlinson (parents) and their son, T, brought separate negligence claims against defendants Mary K. Wagner, MD., Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC, and Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center. In their respective claims, plaintiffs alleged that defendants provided medical services to the parents’ older son, M, failed to timely diagnose M’s genetic disorder, and failed to inform the parents of that disorder. They further alleged that, “[h]ad defendants, and each of them, timely diagnosed [M’s] DMD, [the parents] would not have produced another child suffering from [DMD].” The trial court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither the parents nor T were patients of defendants and, therefore, the court reasoned, defendants owed no obligation of professional care toward them. The Court of Appeals reversed that judgment as to the parents but affirmed as to T. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court judgment dismissing this action. Under the parents’ theory of relief, the relevant injury was not the resulting life, but the negligent deprivation of information that was important to the parents’ protected interest in making informed reproductive choices. T’s claim necessarily depended on the premise that T had a legally protected interest in not being born, rather than risk being born with DMD. "[T]he doctrinal implications of recognizing T’s right to recover such damages would be significant." The Court concluded the factual allegations were sufficient as to the parents' claim. With respect to T's claims, however, the Court determined the "threshold difficulty with T’s argument is that it puts the damages cart before the liability horse; that is, T’s argument blurs the line between the identification of a cognizable injury and the determination of damages resulting from the injury. . . based on the facts that T alleges, defendants could not have caused T a physical harm." View "Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2005, the child who was the focus of this proceeding was born. He had an autism spectrum disorder, developmental delays, including speech delays, and other significant health issues. In 2010, when the child was five years old, his mother and father divorced. Mother had been his primary caretaker, and she was awarded sole legal custody. In 2015, when the child was 10 years old, the Oregon Department of Human Services investigated reports that mother was neglecting the child’s basic needs and risking his safety by allowing him to have contact with her significant other, L. The department issued a “founded disposition” based on its administrative determination that mother had neglected the child through a “[l]ack of supervision and protection.” The department then filed a petition to obtain dependency jurisdiction over the child. When a parent appeals a jurisdictional judgment making the Department the legal custodian of the parent’s child and that wardship is subsequently terminated, the department may file a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded termination of such a wardship did not necessarily render the appeal moot; whether dismissal is appropriate will depend on the particular circumstances presented. In this case, the Supreme Court concluded the department met its burden to prove that a jurisdictional judgment would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties and was therefore moot. View "Dept. of Human Services v. A. B." on Justia Law